George Zimmerman Trial

[Haloti92]

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but as of a few hours ago I was hearing reports that this was not a huge factor in the decision because both prosecution and defense agreed it was hard to establish this.

Who was on top absolutely mattered (or should have to the jurors). It goes to the 'reasonableness' of fearing great bodily harm. If you are trapped/mounted, you are more reasonable to fear future harm (because you are less able to escape it).

I didn't hear anyone say it was not a huge factor, but if they did, I assume they meant that there was not enough evidence to show that this is not what occurred (and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defense's theory beyond a reasonable doubt). That the scant evidence that did exist as to the body positioning corroborated the defense theory made the issue that much less important to the prosecution's argument.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

Well under that scenario she would have been justified because she had a reasonable fear. Much like Zimmerman.

And like I said 3 posts ago, If some creep is following me in the dark, I have a right to have a reasonable fear as well. Are you telling me that a man/boy/myself/you/Trayvon who knows they are being followed doesn't have a cause to have reasonable fear either?

Or does that only apply to women?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[NCRAVEN]

Couldn't that also work for Martin. An unknown individual at night is following him to his house. He could have been feeling as much if not more fear than Raveninwoodlawn's friend.

Possibly, if he had a reasonable Zimmerman was out to harm him. But there was no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow him after he was told it was needed for him to do that.

Additionally, Zimmerman also had the right to respond to that force with equal force or greater force to stop the attack, if Martin escalated it from there Zimmerman had the right to respond again.

If you have questions about all this and want real answers, watch the trial on youtube. There was testimony about escalation of force. And in the jury instructions the judge defines self-defense and what is justifiable.

[NCRAVEN]

And like I said 3 posts ago, If some creep is following me in the dark, I have a right to have a reasonable fear as well. Are you telling me that a man/boy/myself/you/Trayvon who knows they are being followed doesn't have a cause to have reasonable fear either?

Or does that only apply to women?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

3 post ago we weren't talking about hitting someone out of reasonable fear. Running into an apartment building and the person chasing you step for step is different that what the evidence suggest happened with Martin/Zimmerman.

[Haloti92]

I have said several times I don't know who started confrontation/fight.

Well, Akashi did, which is what I responded to before you responded to me. And anyone defending Martin has to (seems to) try to show Zimmerman initiated.

I'm not basing my opinion on Zimmerman on that one event, let alone trying to prove his guilt or innocence which you said you are.

I have yet to hear what you are basing your opinion on then. And as for who is trying to prove what, I am not trying to prove anything other than the arguments people are making for guilt are without any supporting evidence, or in some cases belied by the evidence we have.

You are siding with Zimmerman because you believe Martin wanted and started a confrontation, when there is no evidence to support that. It is simply you opinion not fact.

I am not siding with Zimmerman, I am siding with a not guilty verdict based on the evidence. I am siding with the evidence that exists, or the lack of evidence that exists to prove Zimmerman's guilt. And I am tired of repeating myself, but there is evidence Martin wanted a confrontation, and you haven't addressed it. You seem to be confusing the word 'evidence' and 'proof.'

Yes you need to prove that Martin wanted a confrontation.

No, I don't. I only need to offer evidence that undermines the argument that Zimmerman initiated an unwanted confrontation with Martin (Akashi's argument). I did that, and thus far it is still standing.

That is your belief.

Based on the evidence and common sense, yes, that is my belief, but my belief doesn't matter at all in terms of the law or the proper verdict here.

I don't believe Zimmerman is guilty because he initiated an unavoidable situation. I have never said that.

Akashi does, which is who I was talking to until you started arguing about what I was saying and assuming I was saying it for reasons that I wasn't.

All I have ever said from the beginning is that there isn't enough evidence to support a conviction.

There also isn't enough evidence to support your belief Zimmerman is guilty (according to your take on my arguments), but yet you apparently do. I am not sure why we are arguing, to be honest.

You are the one claiming to know the intentions of the victim...

Nope, I am the one looking at the facts and arguing which scenario they best fit. And I am only doing that to rebut contrary theories that the evidence contradicts.

therefore you should provide evidence to support your claim.

I did, and it remains unaddressed. And remember, evidence does not equal proof. It just supports theories, some better than others.

But there is none

So you say, but you are wrong.

...only your opinion on the most plausible explanation.

No, actual evidence, in the record, as to the movements of Trayvon. And this record of movements categorically disproves plenty of theories. Such as he went home. Such as he ran as fast as he could away from Zimmerman, but Zimmerman ran him down. Such as he called the cops in fear of Zimmerman. All theories disproven by the evidence.

So what theories are left? And how likely are they? Certainly not infinite theories. Certainly not 47 theories that are exactly equally likely. You get my point.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

3 post ago we weren't talking about hitting someone out of reasonable fear. Running into an apartment building and the person chasing you step for step is different that what the evidence suggest happened with Martin/Zimmerman.

No, you are assuming apparently that my statement that I'd have no problem slugging the follower is based on bravado or something.

Let me be clear. I have lived in Baltimore my entire life. If someone is following me in the dark in this city, I am in more than reasonable fear and me throwing the first punch Ina confrontation is self preservation.

And frankly, in my hypothetical, it doesn't even have to progress to apartment stairs. The "defending of herself" could have started in the parking lot. By the letter of the law...they both have every right to be there there is no law against following her and he is not committing a crime until he physically assaults her.

Being the cause of reasonable fear is not a crime either.

We are getting to the slippery slope of why I said what I said about unjust laws. You assumed that in my original post about slugging a creepy follower that point blank, I've committed a crime and opened myself up to have deadly force used against me. I give you another scenario where again, no actual crime was committed and then it's ok if there reasonable fear, it's ok. But you ignored the distinct probability that I...myself would feel more than reasonable fear in my first post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[NCRAVEN]

No, you are assuming apparently that my statement that I'd have no problem slugging the follower is based on bravado or something.

Not really. I was basing it off of this scenario.

Let me be clear. I have lived in Baltimore my entire life. If someone is following me in the dark in this city, I am in more than reasonable fear and me throwing the first punch Ina confrontation is self preservation.

Okay, but again, this is not the scenario of discussion.

And frankly, in my hypothetical, it doesn't even have to progress to apartment stairs. The "defending of herself" could have started in the parking lot. By the letter of the law...they both have every right to be there there is no law against following her and he is not committing a crime until he physically assaults her.

You don't have to have a crime committed against you to have reasonable fear one will be. And no crime has to be committed for you to be justified in using force if your fear is "reasonable".

Being the cause of reasonable fear is not a crime either.

. I'm not sure what you mean by this.

We are getting to the slippery slope of why I said what I said about unjust laws. You assumed that in my original post about slugging a creepy follower that point blank, I've committed a crime and opened myself up to have deadly force used against me. I give you another scenario where again, no actual crime was committed and then it's ok if there reasonable fear, it's ok. But you ignored the distinct probability that I...myself would feel more than reasonable fear in my first post.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I didn't really ignore it, I assumed you were talking as if you were Trayvon. Which like Haloti has said (repeatedly) that after he lost Zimmerman he had 3 -4 minutes to run about 348ft to get home (Which he told Rachel Jeantel he was there and wasn't going to run anymore). It would be logical to assume your fear was not reasonable if you lost Zimmerman and also did in fact not go home.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

Not really. I was basing it off of this scenario.

Okay, but again, this is not the scenario of discussion.

You don't have to have a crime committed against you to have reasonable fear one will be. And no crime has to be committed for you to be justified in using force if your fear is "reasonable".

. I'm not sure what you mean by this.



I didn't really ignore it, I assumed you were talking as if you were Trayvon. Which like Haloti has said (repeatedly) that after he lost Zimmerman he had 3 -4 minutes to run about 348ft to get home (Which he told Rachel Jeantel he was there and wasn't going to run anymore). It would be logical to assume your fear was not reasonable if you lost Zimmerman and also did in fact not go home.

Our discussion started with I said I would do if I was followed. Of course Trayvons scenario is relevant here, but I'm talking generally...my point in my statement of some laws was that that this law in particular, in reality allows for a TON of grey area that I feel you are making out to simply be black or white.

You said my "punch first" reaction dictates the allowance of deadly force. Now I assume because of the "it's not a crime to follow someone and be somewhere where both of us are allowed to be".

I gave you a scenario where again, no crime was committed and you said retaliation is justified do to reasonable fear.

So I clarified my statement to tell you that based on my own as well as others in this city's experiences, having someone following you abso-freaking-lutley a cause for considerable reasonable fear. To act like there isn't, is just ignoring reality here. There are teenagers and even adults getting abducted...held for ransom etc....hell Cal Ripken's mother was kidnapped. There are people who are followed to their homes and accosted at gunpoint at their front door. Men and women, kids and adults.

It has been my experience...and many others I know, that being followed equals incredible fear and danger. And that is where I am coming from with my original statement...I would consider it self defense if someone followed me and there was a confrontation and I threw the first punch.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[AirFlacco]

All quiet in Sanford thus far other than some chants from crowds and some peaceful marches in some cities.

NAACP now wants the Justice Dept to file Civil Rights charges. There was no reply
from the gov't but there is a separate federal investigation going on.

____________________________________________
The NAACP is calling on the Justice Department to file civil rights charges and is asking the public to sign a petition.
"The most fundamental of civil rights - the right to life - was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin," the group said.
-_______________________________________________

If this is a what the DOJ calls an investigation, Zs ass is grass, 7/11/13. The CRS, a
little known sub-govt organization within DOJ was
created by the Civil Rights Act but greatly expanded under OBY to do this:

______________________________
Documents obtained through an FOIA request from the Department of Justice by Judicial Watch reveal that a little known unit deep inside DoJ was tasked with assisting community groups in Florida with organizing and running demonstrations in favor of putting George Zimmerman on trial.

March 25 - 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being "deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain."

More follows.

________________________



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._protests.html




http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/14/justic...html?hpt=hp_c2

[JAB1985]

Theres still a good many people that state their opinion like its fact about who initiated. Regardless if you feel GZor TM did, i can assure you that you do not know for certain and its merely opinion.

Im not sure why TM running away but not getting home instantly means he wanted confrontation being the most likely scenario, when running followed by hiding is pretty typical. That also coincides with either scenario, matching Zimmermans or that he hid and feeling was clear went on his way before being confronted. I also am not sure how jeantel's testimony saying he was home can be used but her saying she heard somebody start the confrontation with TM not. Shes either credible and that speaks volumes or shes not and it doesnt matter.

Ultimately this was the right outcome. Doesnt mean he was innocent, certainly doesnt mean hes actually guilty and the system is broke. Just means you couldnt prove it one way or another and thats why the system "worked". If we locked up people solely based on hunches id say thats a greater injustice. I still feel theres more to the story but i do feel florida is going to be forced to make changes to this law now. In a scenario where two people fear for their lives its basically the wild west and last man standing can legally go free, which im not saying was the verdict here, but this case certainly shined light on that possible outcome.

[HoustonRaven]

Good call. On point again. Though this tie I think Mrs. HR gave you a tip ;)

Indeed. HR was on point throughout the whole process. And I, as well, suspect much Mrs. HR influence. ;)

Mrs. HR isn't really interested in criminal justice matters. Her expertise resides in labor & employment.

She was convinced he'd be found guilty of manslaughter. I did seek her counsel when the jury asked for a list of the evidence though ;)

[Haloti92]

Theres still a good many people that state their opinion like its fact about who initiated. Regardless if you feel GZor TM did, i can assure you that you do not know for certain and its merely opinion.

Yes, the people who are trying to argue Zimmerman should have been found guilty often state he "initiated" everything.

And as for "opinions," same goes with whether Aaron Hernandez is guilty, or OJ, or Casey Anthony, etc.

Im not sure why TM running away but not getting home instantly means he wanted confrontation being the most likely scenario, when running followed by hiding is pretty typical. That also coincides with either scenario, matching Zimmermans or that he hid and feeling was clear went on his way before being confronted. I also am not sure how jeantel's testimony saying he was home can be used but her saying she heard somebody start the confrontation with TM not. Shes either credible and that speaks volumes or shes not and it doesnt matter.

Not sure what you are getting at with Jeantel, I think it is pretty plain she was not credible, though that doesn't mean some or all of what she said did not actually happen.

As for Martin hiding and appearing when Zimmerman came back, yeah that is a possibility, but like you said that supports Zimmerman's point, and certainly does not make any headway trying to prove Zimmerman started the confrontation.

Ultimately this was the right outcome. Doesnt mean he was innocent, certainly doesnt mean hes actually guilty and the system is broke. Just means you couldnt prove it one way or another and thats why the system "worked". If we locked up people solely based on hunches id say thats a greater injustice. I still feel theres more to the story but i do feel florida is going to be forced to make changes to this law now. In a scenario where two people fear for their lives its basically the wild west and last man standing can legally go free, which im not saying was the verdict here, but this case certainly shined light on that possible outcome.

I agree with everything here except the part about changes to the law. Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case. It wasn't used as a defense. Standard self-defense was used and that defense exists in every state, and has in some form existed for 400 years in most societies. And it exists for a reason. I cannot easily see a change to the law in terms of that defense, that could satisfy the common sense protection it allows, while preventing a tragedy like this one from occurring. Some way to raise the "reasonableness" of fear hurdle maybe, but that hurdle is already subjective. I don't know.

This was a very tragic event, and it is a shame it happened. And I and most everyone feels terrible for Trayvon's parents. And I and some people are upset the prosecution, and media, and race-hustlers made the case out to be something it wasn't. I think the manufactured racial overtones have caused some people to look at the case and evidence much differently than they would otherwise. I am not one of them, I would feel the same way if both parties were white, both black, one purple the other green, etc.

I also would argue, but not to start trouble or debate, just to simply state my perception based on looking at other message boards/threads on other sites, that the majority of people distorting the factual record or evidence (or lack thereof) and ignoring (willfully at times) the letter of the law to argue their side are people who are/were calling for a clear guilty verdict. Some admittedly doing it, saying the law is not as important as their abstract feeling of 'justice,' etc.

The spectacle of the trial and its aftereffects are a fairly sad indictment of our society, imo.